stupid question but, why dont we let the Kurds have their own country?

[LSK]

What am I missing?? Removing the Kurds from the Iraq equation would simplify the political process there. The Kurds have wanted their independence for a long time. Why not give it to them?

[Jacobin]

1. I'm sure in the coming civil war they will get it

I'm not sure it's ours to give them.

[billbuckhead]

2. Good question but unfortunately I have the answer

Turkey would invade it and others we don't like would try to influence it. ie Iran, Russia, Saudi, Israel, others

[napi21]

3. On;y thing I've heard is that almost all the oil is in Bagdad.

The Curds want their share of the profits because they are part of Iraq.

[billbuckhead]

7. Actually Kurds have plenty of oil, it's the Sunnis who don't have the oil

[El Supremo]

9. No, the North (Kurdistan) and the South (Shiites) have all the oil.

The Sunnis, in the middle, have very little.

[CONN]

4. Fear of Turkey

I think the reason the Kurds in Iraq did not push for independence was fear of an invasion or attacks by Turkey who would fear a rebellion by "turkish" Kurds to join the new nation

[etherealtruth]

11. that's been my understanding (essentially) n/t

[karlrschneider]

24. I think it's a bit more complex...many Kurds think of themselves as more

"Turkish" than "Iraqi." But the nationalistic labels get blurred when economics enters the equation. And now I'm considering a new thread on a related subject...hmmmmmm

;-)

[MADem]

34. No, not really

They think of themselves as KURDS, first, foremost and always, with a rich cultural history, a distinct language, different customs, and a different way of life. The Kurds in Turkey do not like the Turks at all--they were feature players in HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH publications. When a government tells you that you cannot have a Kurdish name, it gives you an idea how friendly they are.

[Pirate Smile]

5. The Turkish Kurds will try to leave Turkey - MORE War and a broader

War!

Big trouble.

[liberalnurse]

6. For some reason, Turkey would want to invade them.

Turkey may have to comply if they want to join the World Union or something like that. ...I forget what they actually want to join but it's important to them.

[MH1]

8. Turkey wants to join the European Union.

They also don't want the Kurds in Turkey to secede with part of "Turkish" land. There is a Kurd separatist movement in Turkey that seems to be quelled for now. Let Iraqi Kurds get an independent state, and Turkey fears that Turkish Kurds will want to break off and join up with Iraqi Kurdistan taking some land with them.

[bicentennial_baby]

10. because of Turkey and the location of the reserves

[cynatnite]

21. I read they have a huge chunk of oil n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

12. What makes you think we have the right to make grandiose pronouncements?

"Kurdistan" is parts of Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey. ALL of those countries are against losing part of their territory and creating a new entity. Countries generally tend to want to keep all the land they have, not give it away, and the instances of entities that willingly part ways (like Czechoslovakia) are extremely rare.

The Iraqis certainly don't want to give up all that tasty oil...

My header was a bit harsh on you, but there does seem to be this arrogant belief among too many Americans that we have the right to grant life, freedom and all sorts of other things for far away people, and we simply don't have that right.

[LSK]

15. like it or not, we do control Iraq right now

I am not proposing giving all of Iraq to the Kurds and rounding eveyrone else up in a little slice of land. I am just saying why not give the Kurds some of the land we control and allow them to have self-rule.

[bowens43]

20. No part of Iraq is ours to give way.

[LSK]

13. ok, regarding Turkey, couldnt we use the EU to restrain them

I understand that Turkey really really wants to join the EU. Couldnt the EU provided the leverage to keep Turkey away from the Kurds?

[Kagemusha]

14. You know, other people live in the region besides Kurds.

So it's not just a question of what "we" think. They're not on US territory. They're on Iraqi territory and a whole bunch of other territory, and countries tend not to like surrendering territory.

[cascadiance]

17. If you give the Kurds their country in North Iraq, the Turkomens...

there will also want to have their own country there too. They make up about 15% to 20% of the population around there, and have recently been rounded up and jailed by Kurds in Kirkut, etc. in order to help the Kurds get a majority to control that town that controls the oil pipeline, etc.

It's really not a "simple" equation there. That's why you have a problem when you have a simpleton thinking it's good to "spread Democracy" there when he doesn't understand that complexity.

[illflem]

16. Sort of the same reason we don't give

the southwest US back to Mexico.

[bowens43]

18. We have no right to break up Iraq.

[Aimah]

19. Causing more problems in the Middle East

Doing so would make the current war in Iraq look like an minor squabble. They were first promised an independent state in the 1920 Treaty of Sevres. What would be Kurdistan is part of Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Armenia and Syria. All countries have declined the idea. Although I feel for the Kurds but after seeing what has happened after setting up Israel I don't think we want to do that again.

[occuserpens]

22. Independent Kurdistan

Basically, this means split of Iraq and 3-state solution. Actually, Israelis love this idea and promote it quite for some time.
The problem is, this will implode Iraq and result in the regional war.
Iraqi war blog

[newyawker99]

44. Hi occuserpens!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[occuserpens]

61. (((newyawker99)))

[MADem]

23. Three reasons, mainly

Oil in the Kirkuk region

Kurds in Iran

Kurds in Turkey

Put them all together, and they may want a state that encompasses the eastern portion of Turkey, the northwestern chunk of Iran, and if you look at their history, they may just want the entire Zagros chain all the way down to the gulf (historical Kurdistan, by their reckoning).

They are tough, smart people. Some of the toughest and smartest around. Very industrious, culturally tight, and accustomed to hardship. They do not give up.

[Selatius]

26. There are Kurds in Syria as well

The thing Syria, Turkey, and Iran have in common is Kurds.

[occuserpens]

28. yepp

[MADem]

29. It is a very small percentage of the total population

in Syria. They aren't at the critical mass point that you see in that nexus of Iran, Iraq and Turkey.

There are Kurds in the former USSR, too, btw.

And there are loads in Europe, and NYC, too, where the Kurdish Museum is located...

[cascadiance]

31. It's a very similar problem that Palestinians have...

We mainly think of the problems of Palestinians as being with Israelis, much as we associate much of Kurds problems with either Turkey or Iraq.

In fact there have also been many Palestinians that have had similar struggles in other surrounding Arab states as out of power ethnic minorities there too (Jordan, Syria, etc.), much like Kurds are also in Iran and Syria too.

The fundamental problems arose when we all tried to create a state of Israel many years ago and subdivide the various regions into the Arab states we have now, where the boundaries don't really line up strongly with where the ethnic minorities live.

One reason why Ataturk imposed such strong and hard-nosed rule in Turkey when he first tried to setup a secular state and democracy there (he outlawed the fez, amongst other things that traditionally Muslims wore there), was to try and force more uniformity when you had so many different ethnic minorities that could split the country apart into tribal regions if there wasn't some strong-handed leadership at times.

It wasn't just Armenians and Kurds who were "minorities" in Turkey, but many other different religious sects too, which found more of a way of getting united than the Kurds and Armenians did with the Turks, but for a time they were divided too.

We've seen similar ethnic divisions when we went into Afghanistan too, where not all of the different regions were on the same page either (the Northern Alliance, etc.)

Ultimately this whole region, where tribal rule for many there is still more important than trying to start a Democracy, makes any kind of larger "countries" that are run by stable Democratic rule very difficult to accomplish. Turkey was able to do what they've done because they did it on their own, when they were defending themselves against just about everyone else before WWII (French, English, Aussies, Russians, etc. had them surrounded at one point), giving them a rallying point to unite themselves together more as Turks.

Trying to force our will against these people just isn't going to work if we want them as allies and not problems to overcome in that region. Attacking them is about the one thing that DOES unify them against us in many instances, instead of squabbling amongst themselves.

It is interesting that the new generation of Iran is one of the few around there that actually had looked favorably on us (before the Iraq war at least), since they couldn't blame any of their problems on us (since we've not been there since the Iranian revolution). They still have an oppressive and unfriendly government, but that is likely to change as this newer generation starts to take it over.

[MADem]

35. The big difference is that Palestine has no oil

There are also some tremendous natural resources in the Kurdish regions of Iran and Turkey (as well as Iraq).

Nice land, if a bit mountainous and remote.

[Selatius]

25. Turkey would INVADE and BUTCHER the Kurds if they did that

Turkey has pretty much said that hell would freeze over before Kurds in northern Iraq get their own independent "Kurdistan."

[liberalpragmatist]

27. Fear of Turkey, Instability, and Ethnic Cleansing

It's important to keep in mind that the area isn't uniformly Kurdish either. The city of Kirkuk is an ethnic tinderbox and is highly mixed. There are a million Kurds in Baghdad too. There are many Turkomans (ethnically Turk) in Northern Iraq as well.

The way things are going, the creation of a small independent Kurdish state might well happen. But it would accompany disaster if it were to happen. Very few countries have divided peacefully and partition is something that observers should be wary of. It's sometimes unavoidable (see the splitup of the Ottoman Empire), but it ALWAYS is accompanied by massive bloodshed, ethnic cleansing and often intractible conflicts between the successor states.

For examples, witness Yugoslavia, India/Pakistan, Israel/Palestine, and Northern Ireland. Now, some of those may have been unavoidable - it's very difficult to imagine the Israelis and Palestinians living in the same state. With Yugoslavia, observers differ. Some, like JK Galbraith insist that allies were misguided in trying to keep Yugoslavia together and that an orderly partition was the only possibility. Others argue that most Yugoslavians had no problems with the Yugoslav state and as late as '91 the principal demand of nationalist figures was more decentralization. The President of Yugoslavia as a whole when the country started to break up was actually a Croat (Milosevich was a Serb). As for India/Pakistan, most Indian observers and most Western observers feel that partition was a mistake - of course, most Pakistani historians would disagree with that. Northern Ireland? Obviously people differ on that as well, but many have pointed out that had independence been given to a united Ireland in the 1920s, there's absolutely no chance there would have been a conflict lasting this long.

[occuserpens]

32. Iraqi instability???

<Fear of Turkey, Instability, and Ethnic Cleansing>

As far as instability and ethnic cleansing are concerned, there is not much to fear. It is all in place in Iraq quite for some time.

[liberalpragmatist]

33. Instability in the region

Regional instability would likely result in which Turkey gets involved, probably militarily. And as for ethnic cleansing, it's been going on, but if Kurdistan were to declare independence it would increase tenfold.

Now, it may well have to come to that. But we shouldn't assume that it's an "easy" answer, because it creates its own set of huge problems, and we should be aware of that. I think a political solution negotiated between the Kurds, the Shias, and the Sunnis is the best way forward, not an independent Kurdish state which could well cause even more instability and ethnic cleansing. Plus, as Juan Cole has written, given that the oil reserves around Kirkuk are drying out, in a matter of a couple decades, the Kurdish state would be a small landlocked state, surrounded by hostile neighbors and with no natural resources - essentially economically unviable.

[occuserpens]

36. There is not much place for politics in Iraq

<I think a political solution negotiated between the Kurds, the Shias, and the Sunnis is the best way forward, not an independent Kurdish state which could well cause even more instability and ethnic cleansing.>

What we have in Iraq is a religious revolution, not a political dsicussion.

<Plus, as Juan Cole has written, given that the oil reserves around Kirkuk are drying out, in a matter of a couple decades, the Kurdish state would be a small landlocked state, surrounded by hostile neighbors and with no natural resources - essentially economically unviable.>

Nobody knows what will happen in the ME in several decades, the conflict is raging now.

[wadestock]

30. I'll tell you what you're missing

1. You can't solve any of this through "regime change"
2. You can't solve any of this through anihilation of the entire Iraqi army to the point that they can't defend themselves. Hello? They have no Army.
3. It will take up to 1 million troops to effectively guard the borders plus ensure martial law within the borders. This will never happen.
4. The agonizing irony of what the US attempted to craft in this area is a "republic" type government. Ironic because the US is not a republic but a "united states". If only we had crafted some intelligent idea about how to separate the 3 different fractions in Iraq into states....well....

This presupposes that the scum bags in charge had any intention whatsoever to really turn this into a democratic, peaceful country.

Destruction of the entire army, including every artillery piece, tank, etc...is the obvious precursor to permanent occupation.

DUH

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. What?!!! Lay down the White Man's Burden?

We must manage the Middle East! We can't leave it to the lesser breeds to take care of their own affairs! Why, just look at what a swell job we've been doing all over the world since became a SUPERpower. Just look how we helped out in Congo, Guatamala, Honduras, El Salvador, Iran, Lebanon, Somalia, Chile, Haiti, and all those other countries that we saved. Not to mention Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

We must protect the Iraqis from the Kurds. Or, is it the Kurds from the Turks..maybe the Sunnis from the Shia..no, the Kurds from the Iranians, or was it the Arabs? We sure as hell have to keep the Bolivians out of there. Wait a minute..It's the Venezuelans we have stop from annoying the Ugandans.

What would the world be like without our benevolent guiding hand?

[radwriter0555]

38. "WE" have no right to give anyone ANYTHING.

The USA doesn't own iraq.

[occuserpens]

41. exactly

[Lydia Leftcoast]

39. "We" can do very little

The Kurds are scattered across Turkey, Iraq, and Iran and are ethnically closer to the Iranians than to anyone else.

The governments of all three countries, especially Turkey, have traditionally been hostile to them.

[LynnTheDem]

40. Ask Turkey. And what's this "we let"?

Shouldn't any such decisions be up to the Iraqis?

[Solly Mack]

42. Thank you! I was just about to say " we let "????

[Leopolds Ghost]

43. Um.... you guys... the Kurds already have their own independent country.

In EVERYTHING but name. And if they want to declare independence, they'll do that too.

They control the roads, schools, ballot boxes. In fact, it was the Kurds we relied on to count the vote in the northern provinces, which is why Mosul voted 75% FOR the constitution and Salahuddin province voted 75% AGAINST (the two provinces are ethnically similar, in fact there are probably more pro-constitution Shi'ites in Salahuddin then there are Kurds in Mosul. Both the Kurds and the Shi'ites mysteriously ran up 99% to 100% YES vote in areas they control outright).

The Kurds have their own fanatical fighting force (the peshmerga).

All this crap about what Turkey might do is condescending and paternalistic. The Kurds have their own parliament and legislature, their own police force, everything. All of which was officially recognized by the new constitution (meaning they now can send official ambassadors to the US, etc.) The Kurds are also our ONLY allies in the region. Like the Israelis, the Christians and Druze in Lebanon, and the Allawites (who control Syria) they are religious minorities who practice a syncretic form of Islam. They can take care of themselves.

Our objective should be to withdraw our troops within Kurdish lines and try to keep the Kurds from massacring non-Kurds in their territory.

It's no wonder people don't see the sense of this when they don't have all the facts.

The Kurds have been independent in all but name since the no-fly-zone was established.

Because the peshmerga is superior to any other fighting force in the region (they train with our guys and they're the only soldiers you hear about when they talk about making the "Iraqi" army fight for themselves), air power is everything for controlling Kurdistan.

Once Saddam lost control of the skies above the no-fly-zone, he lost Kurdistan. They even invaded Mosul -- in 1998. That's when the US allowed all our CIA assets in the region to be killed when Saddam struck a deal with a rival Kurdish group to evict the CIA-sponsored Kurdish faction from Mosul. His own army couldn't do the job, and the US was powerless to order the Kurds around (and still is).

Did I mention both of the main factions of Kurds (each have their own
regional capital and standing army) are Stalinist-leftist in origin?
Just a trivia tidbit.

That's why Christopher Hitchens and a few other paleo-leftists supported the invasion. Never desert a comrade, and all that.

[leftofthedial]

45. their homeland contains lots of oil

Turkey and Syria and Iran all oppose it

[eissa]

46. They deserve their own country, but

not in Iraq. Iraq was never their homeland; the Zagros region between Turkey and Iran is. The Kurds simply took advantage of a weakened central government to create their own autonomous state. It's nothing new -- they've tried this in both Turkey (post WWI) and Iran (in the early 40s), and failed, and again more recently in Syria. The Kurds were promised their own country by the League of Nations in what is now southeastern Turkey, but modern Turkey renegaded on that deal. And this whole "oppressed Kurds" routine is getting old; to get the real story on how they manage the northern part of Iraq -- corruption, land grabs, harassment of Iraq's indigenous Assyrian population, etc., go to http://www.aina.org/releases/20050829120706.htm

[cascadiance]

49. None of these parties are totally innocent...

Kurds, Turks, Armenians, Assyrians, Azzeris, Israelis, Palestinians, Sunnis, Shi'as, etc.

While at any one point in time of history, one group might have arguably "opressed" and displaced the other, or part of one group opressed an other, in another part of history these equastions are reversed. The same group of people that claim to be opressed are at other times the opressors. Our perception is colored by those covering those events and their personal perspective of them.

We should take care in getting ourselves caught in the middle of such conflicts without knowing the complete picture, and knowing which events affect us directly or the rest of the world. If neither of these measurements apply, then getting involved with such conflicts just magnifies the consequences to involve us and other countries in the world, when it otherwise might be contained to a certain region and often don't solve any problems that are supposed to be solved.

Bushco should watch some more Star Trek episodes that involve the prime directive. They might learn something. Then again, they didn't really learn much when they watched Rove and Bush's "favorite show" (or so they said to the show's star Bruce Boxleitner), Babylon 5 either.

[Leopolds Ghost]

50. Idealistic whitewash

The neocons engage in this white-hat/black-hat nonsense.

The Kurds are the ethnic group formerly known as the Medes (circa 1000 BC). They are very much native to the Zagros region which INCLUDES Iraqi Kurdistan and about 1/4 of modern day Turkey. They used to share
with the Armenians but the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians in the early 20c. killing millions. Their homeland is roughly along the Turkey/Iraq border and includes Erbil and the traditionally mixed city of Kirkuk.

Sure the Kurds are oppressive towards non-Kurds and they just stole the constitutional referendum in the province of Nineveh. They are kind of have a tribal siege mentality going tho. They got massacreed by Saddam once and don't want the Turks to do what they did to the Armenians.

They do have a parliament and free press which they started basically on their own, before the Iraq war when the US presence had dissipated.

The two major parties are both ex-communist and extremely regional in nature, headed by two families of smugglers, Talabani and Barzani.

Each of the two parties controls a region with its own capital, they want Kirkuk to be the federal capital.

The Assyrian christians have been oppressed by all and sundry for the past 3000 years, before which THEY were doing the oppressing. The Medes (modern day Kurds) conquered Assyria (modern day Iraqi Kurdistan) BEFORE PERSIA EXISTED!

[eissa]

53. How did the city of Erbil get its name?

It's original name is the Assyrian "Arbaillu" -- "Arba" meaning four and "illu" meaning gods; the city of four gods, named after the four gods which the ancient pagan Assyrians revered. Dig under the earth of either of these cities -- or any number of other ones located in the northern region of Iraq -- and it will be ancient Assyrian artifacts, jewelery and infrastuctures you will find. I maintain that while there may have been Kurds in the region, their primary homeland are the mountain regions of the Zagros along the current Turkish-Iranian border.

[Leopolds Ghost]

56. Thanks for this info

I definitely support the rights of the Assyrians (not to mention who is it -- the Elamites? in the south) to exist,

'specially them being Christian and all (since I'm Christian, too.)

I am wondering if Kirkuk would be worse off under a US-occupied Kurdistan?

It's sad & ironic that one of the negative consequences of Zionism in Israel has been the gradual ethnic cleansing of almost all the Sephardic Jews from Iraq, Morocco, etc.

[noonwitch]

47. Our Allies in Turkey are against such a state

They feel it would lead to instability within their country, and kurdish claims to their territory.
Turkey is one of our few muslim allies that we can actually count on, at least for now.

[Leopolds Ghost]

51. Actually, the KURDS are our only genuine allies in the region

Because like Israel, they'd be wiped off the face of the earth (like the Assyrian Christians) if not for a sponsor (Saddam sponsored the Iraqi Christians -- and forced the Iraqi Jews out of the country to curry favor with Shiites during the Iran/Iraq war).

Turkey is a NATO ally. We allied with them to keep the Soviets out of the Middle East. They are a repressive and reactionary 2nd-world military society much akin to what America is in danger of becoming. There is nothing we "need" from Turkey.

Piss off the Kurds and you have the equivalent of the Chechens against you. They are world-class smugglers, guerrillas, and privateers. If anything we should withdraw all our forces within the borders of Iraqi Kurdistan where they'd be actually welcomed.

[Leopolds Ghost]

52. OTOH, they DID just steal the referendum

...from the Sunnis, in the province of Nineveh, on US instruction.

The sooner we acknowledge that Sunni's know that, and that we know they know that, the sooner we will hasten the eventual and appropriate partition of Iraq by the Iraqis themselves.

Iraqi nationalism and secular fascism (Baathism) are one and the same, unfortunately.

[eissa]

54. Two corrections

Assyrians have NOT been wiped off the earth (not yet, at least). There are still several million of us scattered around the Middle East (mainly in northern Iraq) and the rest of the world. And we were never "sponsored" by Saddam. Under his rule, our language was prohibited from being taught or schools built. However, because he was a secular ruler, our religious rights were protected (unlike now, which is why the lone Assyrian representative in the Iraqi government encouraged his people to vote against the proposed Iraqi constitution.)

[Leopolds Ghost]

57. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply you didn't exist!

Obviously I don't hold the Kurds to some high standard seeing as how they:

(a) stole the constitution referendum in Nineveh;
(b) would like to ethnically cleanse the Turkomans and Assyrians (your people) for some reason.

Despite that or perhaps because of that, it would perhaps be wise for the US to ally with the Kurds and withdraw our forces to Kirkuk and take a hands-off approach to the rest of Iraq?

Thanks, it's great to have an actual representative of one of the cultural minorities that is under attack in Iraq!

[eissa]

60. It's nice to converse with someone

as informed as you! Leave it to us liberals to carry on a conversation using (gasp!) facts.

As to your proposal, the honest answer is I really don't know. At this point I am truly stumped as to the best course of action in Iraq as it relates to both the Iraqis and the American people. I think there is enough resentment in Iraq right now against the Kurds without us outright allying ourselves with them and further igniting tensions, especially in Kirkuk which is a powder keg of ethnic mixtures just waiting to blow.

[MojoXN]

48. Because the Turkish Kurds would stage a mass exodus...

Also, because the Muslim residents of Iraq, both Shi'ite and Sunni, would NEVER tolerate the western world carving up Muslim lands an handing them out. The last time they leat that one slide, we ended up with Israel. Take it for what you will.

MojoXN

[SoCalDem]

55. It's not OURS to give.. Turkey does not want the Kurds

having an "official" state.. As long as it's called an autonomous region, they will tolerate it, but when the artificial country of Iraq was established, no attention to the ethnic/tribal make up was paid, and parts of the Kurdish "nation" actually lives in Turkey and would love to "merge" with a Free Kurdistan.. Turkey would NOT be amused to lose part of their territory..

When outsiders "create" countries, they usually screw up..

Pakistan/Kashmir/India
Yugoslavia/Coatia/Boznia-HerzoGovinia/Slovenia/Macedonia/Kosovo etc
Cyprus
Turkey/Armenia
Israel/Lebanon/Syria/Jordan/Palestine

Non "western" people identify with clan/family/kin/tribe more than we do, and artificial boundaries are dicey..
These people also measure time in thousands of years...not decades..and they hold grudges

[bluedawg12]

58. Riiter: Turkey would never allow it and would go to war with

the Kurds. They will not allow a Kurdistan.

[leftchick]

59. here is another stupid question...

why should the USA be in the position of letting any country do what they want?